Chhattisgarh HC Grants Bail To Rape-Accused, Citing 34-Year-Old Tribal Government Employee’s Knowledge Of His Marital Status And Months Of Cohabitation

The victim alleged that she belongs to a Scheduled Tribe and that the appellant, with whom she had a relationship, sexually exploited her on a promise of marriage while they lived together in a rented house from 18 February to 7 June 2026.

She also alleged that he was married and had physically assaulted her.

The resulting case was registered under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The Special Judge rejected the appellant’s bail application on 19 August 2026.

He appealed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act; the victim appeared and opposed bail.

The appeal was brought under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, which provides the appellate route for challenging an order of the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court.

The alleged offences were under Section 64 of the BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the circumstances apparent from the case diary, including the filing of the charge-sheet, the absence of criminal antecedents, and the likely duration of the trial.

No precedent was cited, and the Court made no determination on the merits of the allegations.

The Court weighed the prosecution’s allegation that the appellant sexually exploited the victim on a false promise of marriage against the circumstances identified from the case diary.

It noted that the victim was 34, employed as a government servant, knew of the appellant’s marital status, and had voluntarily lived with him in rented accommodation for approximately two to three months.

The Court also considered that the charge-sheet had been filed, the appellant had no criminal antecedents, and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

On that basis, and without expressing an opinion on the merits, it allowed the appeal.

It directed that the appellant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Bail was subject to conditions prohibiting inducement, threats, or promises to persons acquainted with the case; conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial; and requiring appearance on every date fixed by the trial Court.